Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38587879›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

An Empirical Evaluation of Prompting Strategies for Large Language Models in Zero-Shot Clinical Natural Language Processing: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.

Sonish Sivarajkumar, Mark Kelley, Alyssa Samolyk-Mazzanti, Shyam Visweswaran, Yanshan Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

96 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sonish SivarajkumarIntelligent Systems Program, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4173-1988
Mark KelleyDepartment of Health Information Management, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9436-5595
Alyssa Samolyk-MazzantiDepartment of Health Information Management, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0081-5183
Shyam VisweswaranIntelligent Systems Program, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2079-8684
Yanshan WangIntelligent Systems Program, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4433-7839

Funding

ENACT: Translating Health Informatics Tools to Research and Clinical Decision MakingU24TR004111 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI STEVEN E REIS, SHYAM VISWESWARAN · 2022 to 2026
$23.3M
Closing the loop with an automatic referral population and summarization systemR01LM014306 · NLM · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Yifan Peng, Justin Frederick Rousseau · 2023 to 2026
$2.7M
NCATS NIH HHS U24 TR004111NLM NIH HHS R01 LM014306
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in natural language processing (NLP), especially in domains where labeled data are scarce or expensive, such as the clinical domain. However, to unlock the clinical knowledge hidden in these LLMs, we need to design effective prompts that can guide them to perform specific clinical NLP tasks without any task-specific training data. This is known as in-context learning, which is an art and science that requires understanding the strengths and weaknesses of different LLMs and prompt engineering approaches.

objectiveThe objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of various prompt engineering techniques, including 2 newly introduced types-heuristic and ensemble prompts, for zero-shot and few-shot clinical information extraction using pretrained language models.

methodsThis comprehensive experimental study evaluated different prompt types (simple prefix, simple cloze, chain of thought, anticipatory, heuristic, and ensemble) across 5 clinical NLP tasks: clinical sense disambiguation, biomedical evidence extraction, coreference resolution, medication status extraction, and medication attribute extraction. The performance of these prompts was assessed using 3 state-of-the-art language models: GPT-3.5 (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and LLaMA-2 (Meta). The study contrasted zero-shot with few-shot prompting and explored the effectiveness of ensemble approaches.

resultsThe study revealed that task-specific prompt tailoring is vital for the high performance of LLMs for zero-shot clinical NLP. In clinical sense disambiguation, GPT-3.5 achieved an accuracy of 0.96 with heuristic prompts and 0.94 in biomedical evidence extraction. Heuristic prompts, alongside chain of thought prompts, were highly effective across tasks. Few-shot prompting improved performance in complex scenarios, and ensemble approaches capitalized on multiple prompt strengths. GPT-3.5 consistently outperformed Gemini and LLaMA-2 across tasks and prompt types.

conclusionsThis study provides a rigorous evaluation of prompt engineering methodologies and introduces innovative techniques for clinical information extraction, demonstrating the potential of in-context learning in the clinical domain. These findings offer clear guidelines for future prompt-based clinical NLP research, facilitating engagement by non-NLP experts in clinical NLP advancements. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first works on the empirical evaluation of different prompt engineering approaches for clinical NLP in this era of generative artificial intelligence, and we hope that it will inspire and inform future research in this area.

Indexed as

BARDclinical dataclinical informationensembleevaluationextractionfew shotGeminiGPTheuristicin-context learninglanguagelanguage modellarge language modelLLaMA-2LLMLLMsmachine learningmodelsnatural language processingNLPpromptprompt engineeringpromptingpromptszero-shot

Identifiers

PMID38587879
PMCPMC11036183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.